convergence_tvfandomcom-20200214-history
CONVERGENCE
'1.) "Gaps in the Plot Were Not Good."' Gaps in plots tended to leave plot lines open, which had left a vast majority of viewers without an understanding of the films, even after having just finished them. These plot holes resulted in viewers disliking the films, in a sense that they failed to fully explain the story. Initially, movies were straight-forward as they did not require multiple viewings to get a better understanding. Thus gaps left the viewers feeling the films were either incomplete. Only younger audiences were engaged by this type of storytelling. The older audiences, however, were used to traditional ways of storytelling. This made plot gaps a negative as the majority of viewers didn't fully understand the concept behind them. For most people, it was understood that a film would be self-contained storyline, with proper character placement, and a definitive conclusion of the story. Simply, this meant that a film had a clear beginning, middle, and end. The plot picked up where it needed to and climax arrived appropriately. Straight forward narrow storytelling was the norm, and any deviation from the formula meant a possible loss of sales (via word of mouth from those who've seen the movie). Earlier films followed specific structures in plot, such as having a balance, ignition, rising action/climax, and resolution. Even the majority of films today still follow that classic structure, but there are the classic examples of movies that break the mold. The Matrix trilogy, by Andy and Larry Wachowski, for example, is a modern day film series that follow traditional plot structures loosely. The Matrix has what it called a circular plot, meaning that its story can have multiple interpretations. It's akin to an open-ended question. One's interpretation of what's 'really' going on in “The Matrix” will differ from another person's and neither interpretation can be considered correct. This kind of storytelling provides the audience with a more personal experience. By directors engaging in this kind of storytelling, it allows consumers or filmgoers to follow the transmedia storytelling model, by expanding the universe of the movie into comic books, and video games. This model is being largely used today by studios who attempt to create the next transmedia franchise and not just one standalone blockbuster. The 1930’s marked the beginning of the golden age for film. The golden era of filmmaking took place from 1930’s to the 1950’s, and was said to have produced some of the finest movies in film history. During that time period films were still fairly new to audiences having not quite incorporated sound and color. Nonetheless, audiences were so intrigued with the concept of moving pictures to the point where going to the movies became a weekly ritual for Americans. In 1946, 75% of Americans (90 million) went to the movies. 2011's estimated weekly moviegoers is about 20 million, which equates to about 7.5% (Rodman p. 156). Those numbers clearly show an immense decline in weekly moviegoers. It was also stated that in the 1930’s and 40’s films emulated American culture, which at that time did not deal with transmedia storytelling. Also during the golden age of filmmaking, movies would contain a beginning, middle, and end to the main story and plot. Since most of the technologies that we take for granted today were nonexistant, moviegoers from that era expected all of the loose ends in a film to be tied up before the conclusion of the film mainly because the old Hollywood system depended on redundency to ensure that viewers could follow the plot at all times, even if they exited to the restroom or became distracted (Jenkins, p. 106). Gaps in films are an understood practice in our present transmedia moviegoing experience due to the fact that it forces viewers to 'do homework' in order to gain a thorough understanding of the storyline for the entire film through various media sources such as blogs, video games, film production initiated websites, and viral media (e.g.: For The Dark Knight Warner Bros had created a website with staged interviews and blogs suggesting fans to "Vote for Harvery Dent" a fictitious character from the Batman/DC Comis Universe), Beforehand, people just watched films as a form of escapism and following complex storylines complicated things to the point where they wished that they hadn't watched the movie. Some viewers may want to understand the plot of the movie without having to research it like a case study, but the gaps in the movie will make that virtually impossible. That is the reason why many viewers leave the theaters, scratching their heads in confusion, wondering what they just watched. Movies such as Casablanca became classics because as Umberto Eco stated "First, he argues, the work must come to us as a completely furnished so that its fans can quote characters and episodes as if they were aspects of the private sectarian world".(Jenkins pg. 99) Umberto also states that the material given to the audience should be able to be mastered, and gaps in the movie tend to complicate things far too much for the average viewer just looking to take his date out on a night on the town. '1.3 Why "Gaps" in Movies Are Good Now' Gaps can now be seen as ways to engage within content. Gaps allow consumers to engage deeply, through different forms of media content. This includes web browsing, video games and more. These gaps allow further interpretation. Furthermore it expands a film, and also offers many ways of understanding it. These gaps offer history and backgrounds of many characters in films. They are considered extensions within a film, in which consumers are welcomed to explore. However, gaps used to be refereed to as bad, being that it left the viewer in a state of mystery. Now, gaps allow further participation, encouraging consumers to engage with content. Gaps allow a film to become multidimensional. These gaps are essential to the consumers, as they allow consumers to dig deeper into their favorite films. Users can now find information or clues elsewhere besides the actual film. For example, to understand the entire Matrix universe, it is imperative that you read the AniMatrix, and play “Enter the Matrix”, the video game that bridges the gap between the movies. Furthermore, these gaps ellaborate on the film, and allows further interpretation. Now, these unexplained gaps are good, because the culture and era in which we now live in, is a culture that allows and expects the viewers to engage in the media and explore the universe of the movie. The universe of “The Matrix” is so deep and rich, so full of information. While movies may have these “expanded universes” behind them, because the movie studios see profit behind these games, there are legitimate reasons for doing so. For example, the movie “Inception”, seems to be a straight-forward movie, doesn't it? The ending is open-ended, enticing the viewers to come up with their own theories. We live in an era in which movies are no longer singular. In today's world, movies make us think. They allow us to debate with others on all forms of the movies. It's an alternate form of engaging the viewer, one that seems to work brilliantly. With movies like “Pulp Fiction” and “Memento”, they are not following a straight path. With “Memento”, everything is in reverse. It's played backwards, a concept that really seems to work with the film. In the case of “Pulp Fiction”, the movie is so scrambled up, it's hard to really piece it all together. This way of storytelling is good now, because we've grown an appreciation for it. We have all watched movies with weird ways of telling a story. We've all engaged in a movie one way or the other. We've all thought of the “open-ended ending” and discussed it with the people we went to the theaters together with. We have grown accustomed to this way of storytelling because it is a change. If movies were still following the clear beginning, middle, and end path, we'd be watching the same movies over and over again. We wouldn't know what we're missing. 2.) The film-going experience was contained to one sitting whether at the theater or at the tv/vcr. The film-going experience was always contained in one sitting. That was back when movies had never strayed from the classic storytelling formula. People could spend two hours and go to the movie theaters, seeking an escape from the real world and the real life struggles present in the world. Movies were offered as a fom of escapism, and people just wanted to relax. They didn't want to think. With the advent of television in the 1950's, families gathered round and watched television. ABC, CBS, NBC, and the Dumont Channel were the only network stations available to watch. Five stations of nothing on. With that, there was no need to play any "weird" movies or televisions. You already had their money. That statement is no longer true, because the formatting for television and film has evolved to the point where it's completely different than from thirty years ago. Nowadays, movies are always different. There's always going to be someone trying a different way to tell that specific story. They're going to try out new forms of media. Now telling a story is not simply contained in movie form. They are now presented in different media platforms, such as games and comic books. Another example, is how the internet had completely changed the game when it became quite clear what the internet would be used for (in large part). With the rise of Napster and Kazaa in the late 90's, pirating had become so rampant that movie and music companies had no idea of what to do. They were completely caught off guard. Movies were sometimes even downloaded before they were released in theaters. This allowed viewers to get a second viewing of a movie, or allow them to just watch it again. Perhaps, looking for "easter eggs", or just confused by the plots, the internet allowed people to get their hands on the movies, and watch it as many times as they wanted to . '3. The product remained the same across platforms (theater, tv, vhs)' As Jenkins previously stated (p. 106) at one time, movies were self contained units consisting of a beginning, middle, and end. The old Hollywood system depended on redundancy to ensure that viewers could follow the plot at all times even if they went on a popcorn or restroom break. With today's moviegoing experience where the ultimate goal of a film (moreso the film's franchise) would be to engage the viewer, and trying to maintain their attention. (e.g. Pirates of the Carribean, The Matrix, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and the like) are using different platforms. There weren't any needs for alternate editions (for film and VCRs). Everything was solid, in structure. However, in the age of convergence, the transmedia storytelling has moved away from such singularity. It is not as simple as going to the movie theatre and viewing a film in its entirety. At first, filmmakers would focus on pitching a great story, with great characters to caputure the audience. Instead of film producers creating an movie experience that exists only in a two hour film, the world-making process has eveolved into an alternate universe, that extends across multiple media platforms. Now, filmmakers are required to "pitch a world because a world can support multiple characters and multiple stories across multiple media" {Jenkins, 116}. Viewers are now participants, and the cultural protocol has shifted to demand that the fictional universe be subject to the involvement of its fans. Films are now franchises that exist across multiple platforms, from the movie theatre viewings and DVD rentals, to video games and blogs. Collaborationists are thriving today with a more full experience of sharing in the production and consumtion of these film franchises, thus blurring the lines between the creators and the consumers. Another feature of todays transmedia storytelling would fall under the category "synergistic storytelling" as quoted by Ivan Askwith (Jenkins p. 106), where the new movies would have relevant information in order to enhance the cinematic experience. This may have been percieved by some as a marketing tactic to increase sales across a multiplatform environment using games, sub-plots available only on additional merchandising vehicles and the like. '4. Film studios protected the integrity of their products. They were more “prohibitionist,” they limited the ways we could participate with the film experience.' Film, television, and the recording industries are all part of the old regimes that did not embrace fan collaboration of their franchise's work. "Prohibitionists" are groups who seek to regulate and criminalize fan participation. Film studios, the Prohibitionists, became fearful of the fact that their product may be manipulated in such a way that the consumers recreate the film to their own liking. Film studios were at risk to losing their own hardwork as a result of this action. Delegates from the Lucasfilm studios for example believed in the structured approach of "fandom", which means they much rather the consumer appreciate the storyline the way it was presented to them, rather then have the consumer try and recreate it from their own perspective or point of view. The concerns that are expressed from the major companies (about their franchise) are numerous. First, the money that is generated from the recut versions of the studios original works. Even though the recut version is the work of another person who posted it on YouTube, it is still owned by the film studios. It is still the movie that they paid for, and now, someone decided to take it upon theirselves to cut their hard work up. Second, who will be given credit for these recreations? As mentioned above, even though the resulting recut is from someone, the original footage is from the movie companies. They do not wish to have a random person cutting up all of their hard work, and ruining all the time and effort they put into making a solid piece of video. All of their hard work was for nothing when someone decides to “slaughter” their hard work. The question of intelectual property arises, but almost all forms of culture use ideas from the past. Third, do these recreations represent fully or jeopardize what the brand stands for? An example would be a fan making a R rated recut of a PG movie, thus tarnishing its morality and innocence in this case. The main problem stems from the fact that neither the studio, nor consumer know where to draw the line in the sand. Industries did not encourage fan participation. They were very protective about their films from the getgo. Furthermore, they put limitations on the way fans could participate with their films. Film studios were "prohibitionist", disregarding fan collaboration as well as their opinions. By doing this, they allowed fans to produce. In other words, all the hard work created by fans, only promoted and profited the film studios. The most obvious example of controlling a film's intellectual properites would be George Lucas's Star Wars franchise. This franchise has clear limitations as to what actions can be taken within the universe of the film's franchise; a character's image, appearance, backstory, and actions cannot be severely altered by anyone outside of the Lucusfilms corporation. Moreover fans cannot add characters to the franchise or universe. However, there are certain internet communities that have taken on a life of their own where participants have developed amalgamations of storyline and character that could almost stand on their own in terms of originality and creativity. There have been several parodies alluding to the Lucas franchise including George Lucas In Love (Jenkins p. 136) which takes the theme of the film Shakespeare in Love and applies itself to Star Wars. Troops (Jenkins p. 136) which is a spoof of the reality television show “Cops” using the Empire stormtroopers in the same capacity as police officers where the activities of the stormtroopers are chronicled on a daily basis consisting of investigating various criminal activities and destroying the Jedi Knights. Some spoofs may be more offensive, such as porno films based on star wars. It is understandable how a film director may be offended if the characters they had worked on to develop are being used in a low budget porno movie. Not to mention film contests (Jenkins p. 135) where audience engagement has generated a separate entity of creativity, audience engagement, and loyalty all based on the intellectual properties of the Star Wars franchise. Film directors, including George Lucas didnt allow fan participation because they see their corporation at risk for being sued for plagiarism if they allow themselves to come into contact with fan-produced materials that mimicked the dramatic structure of the film franchise should anything in any official Star Wars or film related material make use if similar characters or situations. Even though the fans might be using the storyline or characters of a certain film to make their own spoof, these amateur films may generate alot of publicity that may lead new viewers to go see the original film.